Other poor ways to implement a carbon tax is to use it as a source of revenue or to exempt certain industries. Making a carbon tax "revenue neutral" does raise the price of hydrocarbon fuels towards that of the alternatives, but it misses the opportunity to also lower the cost of the alternatives. And if people don't want to make the coal fired power plant pay a carbon tax because people's power bills will go up would ensure that the coal plant is never replaced with cleaner energy.
Because there are lots of other things that would be affected.
Here's an example. A refinery HAS to use fossil fuels. there's no way solar power or other alternatives could produce the heat required to melt the metals they work with. If you add on additional taxes to those fuels then they have to charge higher prices on all their products in order to remain profitable. Higher prices on steel would then affect the prices of all industries that use the material such as the very companies that make the solar panels. Now all the companies that want to switch have to chose between using higher costing fossil fuels or much higher instalation costs on the alternatives. All the products made by every industry that uses metal of any kind either in their products, buildings, etc are now charging more for their products. The consumer ends up flipping the bill.
You see where this is going? When you affect even one industry it's effects can be felt in every other industry. Greater taxes almost anywhere in business ends up coming out of the peoples pockets in the end.
You certainly could reduce certain emissions through a carbon tax. The developed world may well commit economic suicide regularly collecting such a tax. However, that will in no sense improve the environment meaningfully. The developing world, regardless of what they say or sign, will use the least expensive (read fossil fuel) energy technology they can. The two biggest examples of this (China, India) are nuclear powers. No one, absolutely no one, can force them from whatever path they freely choose. And the one I describe is the current reality.
If you are serious, then your alternatives are:
1) Reduce the cost of carbon neutral technology below fossil fuels.
2) Find an inexpensive way to sink the carbon released without sinking the economies funding it. (The developed world.)
I'd personally be delighted by the first, and it will no doubt eventually occur, but we cannot say when. Lacking a better approach, if you believe in AGW:
"If man-made global warming was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
A solution both practical and inexpensive.*
Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?
---------------------------------------...
Optional section:
*Amazingly, there have been those that have failed to read the link before objecting:
1) The entire point was that the oceans are iron deficient relative to other nutrients. Phosphorus, for example, is present but underutilized.
2) "…It might not work…" It is grounded on experimental findings and direct observation of a more solid nature than man-made global warming itself. Man-made global warming is based on inferences from extremely limited hard data. That the oceans respond to iron fertilization is directly demonstrable. It is a commonplace that vast amounts of microscopic plants sink to the bottom in quite effective sequestration.
Furthermore, source reduction is a 100% certain failure because the developing world simply will not follow carbon reductions unless they are less expensive than unrestricted use of fossil fuels. All that will happen, if source reduction is followed, is that the developed world will become impoverished and the major concentration of environmental concern will make itself irrelevant save as a bad example.
3) Yes, it is being investigated - slowly. Some of the original studies date back to 1993. For a fraction of the money and time wasted on source reduction, all aspects of the issue could have long since been concluded. On a practical level, since iron fertilization has been observed as a natural process (volcanoes, wind blown dust and upwellings, etc.), the insistence on more 'studies' borders on delay tactics. The fact that man-made global warming advocates flee from it like vampires from sunlight is to me a proof of their bad faith, that man-made global warming is a convenient propaganda tool to get them what they want politically. "
There is a difference between working and stupid solutions. Nobody can suggest increasing the cost of doing business will have no effect on consumption. The question is by what twisted chain of logic is raising the price of fossil fuels going to prevent bad weather from occurring? By what twisted chain of logic is raising the price of fossil fuels the best way to improve the efficiency and energy generating capabilities of alternative sources?
What drives an athlete to improve his performance, does strapping weights on the fastest runner help improve the performance of the other runners in the race? Do you tell your best employees that their high performance is keeping the rest of the team down? Does paying an under performing employee more help improve the employees performance; moreover, does it provide an incentive for to the rest of the employees when they see performance isn't a measurement used in determining whether or they get a raise?
Does any of this click, probably not, if you want a path to mediocrity you've got the right mindset, and I see a great future for you in the public sector, where success is determined by how long you've managed to get away with doing as little as possible and spending as much of the budget you've been allotted to ensure next years budget isn't cut.
Let us say I have a factory. I need so much energy to make my product. Now you tax it. The demand for my product stays the same so I can't reduce my CO2 output. How does a tax solve that? Ha! Ha! Dream on. We have gotten so used to being ripped off, we just pay the extra. How does help your carbon footprint? It doesn't.
>If you were the head of an energy company that needed to expand its capacity, and were trying to decide whether to expand your existing coal-fired plant or build a solar or wind plant instead, wouldn't a high price of coal make you more inclined to decide the latter?> Solar and wind energy is not cheap or reliable. If I wanted to supply my customers with reliable power I, in good conscience use those two. Where ever it has been tried you have to back up the solar or wind with a running fossil fueled power plant. Ask Germany.
Of course it would work. Enacting Obamunism has been the greatest factor yet in reducing CO2 levels because it has left our economy in a shambles. Increasing taxes will do more of the same. Obviously it is basic economics that if you increase the price of a commodity, it should reduce its consumption. It will also drain the pockets of the consumers so they don't have money to spend on other things. Personally I don't mind carbon taxes since they tend to be more equitably spread across society. My problem is that they will simply lead to bigger more intrusive government because the taxes won't be offset.
The idea of making carbon more expensive via a tax with the intention to reduce energy demand is flawed. Dramatically increased energy costs equates to dramatically increased cost of living expense. This is inflation and is exactly what the masters calling the shots behind the curtain love.
More inflation = more money required to finance everything = larger sized bank loans = larger interest payments = more profits to the banks = very happy families that operate behind the scenes on behalf of you guessed it - THE US FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
The next breathe following implementation of the carbon tax will be workers in general, and Unions, who will seek wage rises to counter the increased cost of living expense. Over time this will give way to higher salaries, so the expected decrese in demand of energy will be countered by increased remuneration to workers.
The Federal Reserve thrive and actually cling to survival via inflation. This is why they have been behind every bubble that exists in the economy. Relevant to my lifetime these include the credit bubble of the early 80's onwards, tech. bubble of the late 90's/early 2000, housing bubble of mid 2000's till an almighty crash from late 2007 to March 2009. Global Government debt bubble from 2009 to the current time to prop up highly indebted banks/countries/global markets from failing that would catalyze a downward spiralling domino effect across the globe. The Fed. has run and continues to run a ponzi based on printing dollars out of thin air and giving it away to ventures that will increase inflation to enable the perpetuation of what is very likely the greatest bubble of all time (Something similar and potentially greater than the South Sea Bubble of the early 1700's). In case you are unaware all bubbles burst - it is only a matter of when.
Financial market discussion is off topic for this question. It is related by the need to prop up the ponzi via inflation and that is exactly what a carbon tax will do. The carbon tax will fail to curb demand for energy because the system governed and operated by the Federal Reseerve System and all other global Central Banks demands inflation. Pure and simple. The inflation being driven by a wage-price spiral = price-wage spiral in reciprical (both have same outcome).
Killing all the liberals and freeloaders would work to reduce CO2 emissions... (Hey...what tells you it wouldn't work??)... that doesn't mean it's an entirely desirable solution to a non-problem.
If you tax carbon and I were the head of an energy company, I'll just raise my prices, and use the coal I already have, because solar and wind do not work, and they're a waste of time.
If I were about to buy a car, I ALREADY seek the vehicle that is most efficient for my purposes, your tax will do nothing except make us deal with bureaucrats more often.
Edit... unlike most alarmunists, I know that I can talk to solar panels until I'm blue, and they'll still say nothing. Solar panels can be handy if you want very little energy for a very specific purpose, and don't mind that taxpayers pay for it.... otherwise, they're not good for much.
1. Because it wouldn't reduce emissions, it would just move them around the world to carbon tax havens.
2. It wouldn't reduce emissions it would raise costs which would passed on to consumers.
3. Many loopholes for multinationals who could for example buy ten thousand acres of very remote rain forest for a dollar an acre and offset it against what they produce
It will work, it would be an even greater long term advantage for me to install solar panels on my roof, batteries in my basement and disconnect from the grid. If I produce excess energy I could convert that into hydrogen to run my car on all year round or heat my home with in winter.
Cap and trade would also work as would banning the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, I just think that a tax is the easiest to implement, enforce and administer within the existing tax system and has an added benefit to the local economy as it discourages imports over locally produced goods.
I often see comments, mostly (though not entirely) from denialists, suggesting that carbon taxes or other forms of carbon pricing wouldn't reduce human CO2 emissions. But, frankly, I don't see the logic. Generally, making something more expensive will make people use less of it. What's so different about fossil fuels?
Just to make sure people are actually thinking about how carbon pricing would work before they answer, here are a few hypotheticals.
If you were the head of an energy company that needed to expand its capacity, and were trying to decide whether to expand your existing coal-fired plant or build a solar or wind plant instead, wouldn't a high price of coal make you more inclined to decide the latter?
If you were about to buy a car, and were choosing between a cheap car that got 10 mpg and a more expensive car that got 50 mpg, wouldn't sufficiently higher gas prices make the latter car a better deal in the long run?
In short, by what twisted chain of logic *wouldn't* higher prices for fossil fuels, which either a carbon tax or any other kind of carbon pricing would cause, reduce consumer demand for fossil fuels and increase consumer demand for alternatives?
The deniers are nicely making the case for a carbon tax by griping about how much they do not want to pay it. If the carbon tax is implemented, deniers will become model environmental stewards by reducing their carbon emissions to avoid paying the tax.
Well Greece raised taxes on heating oil . It worked now the people burns wood , furniture
and chop down trees in their forest .
Now they have a smoky haze above their towns .
The only thing a carbon tax would reduce is Obama debt . Its a Value added tax .
And the climate does not change due to passing money around .
I think you need to understand our banking system and understand that the "Federal Reserve" is a privately owned bank that sucks our monetary system dry as it is. The Government doesn't need any more money to fight something that isn't a problem.
Ice core data (Vostok Station in Antarctica) shows warming causes CO2 to rise. It also shows that a rise in CO2 levels lags temperatures by as much as 800 years.
Dr. Ian Clark – Dept. of Earth Sciences
Temperature data for the past 140 years show a rise in temperatures from about 1905 to around 1940 of about 0.45 C degrees when CO2 output was still relatively low. From around 1940 to 1975 global temperatures dropped by 0.1 C degrees when CO2 output tripled around the globe during that time. To say that CO2 is driving temperatures up or down is a fallacy. The scares of a coming Ice Age were very prevalent during the 70s.
IPCC Temperature Records vs. CO2 Records
“The “Greenhouse Gas Theory” is very clear on what should happen in the upper atmosphere (troposphere) during ‘Global Warming’. - ‘When the surface temperatures rise then the upper air in the atmosphere (mid-troposphere) should warm rapidly.’ There is no dramatic change in the upper or middle troposphere.”
Dr John Christy – Atmospheric Physicist, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama
Lead author of IPCC Report
@ Thomas - Brazil is replacing coal with eucalyptus charcoal in its steel production.
A carbon tax or ETS just prices a negative externality and allows the free market to them allocate resources appropriately (as happens with many other negative externalities) . Its very simple economics
Exxon Mobil supports a carbon tax therefore it must be wrong. No need for a "twisted chain of logic". End of story. QED.
I have no answer as to why it wouldn't. In British Columbia it IS working AND the economy is GROWING.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
Taxes don't fix things they just take our money away how about penalties and fines for the producers of that awful stuff.
